-Problem 1: Gmail is nearly immortal

Google offers more storage for your email than other Internet service providers that we know about. The powerful searching encourages account holders to never delete anything. It takes three clicks to put a message into the trash, and more effort to delete this message. It's much easier to "archive" the message, or just leave it in the inbox and let the powerful searching keep track of it. Google admits that even deleted messages will remain on their system, and may also be accessible internally at Google, for an indefinite period of time. For a few months they showed a note saying that messages left in the trash folder for 30 days would be automatically deleted, but many users reported that this never happened. Now that message, which is still present for the spam folder, is gone from the trash folder. Google wants very much to get to know you better.
A new California law, the Online Privacy Protection Act, went into effect on July 1, 2004. Google changed their main privacy policy that same day because the previous version sidestepped important issues and might have been illegal. For the first time in Google's history, the language in their new policy made it clear that they will be pooling all the information they collect on you from all of their various services. Moreover, they may keep this information indefinitely, and give this information to whomever they wish. All that's required is for Google to "have a good faith belief that access, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public." Google, you may recall, already believes that as a corporation they are utterly incapable of bad faith. Their corporate motto is "Don't be evil," and they even made sure that the Securities and Exchange Commission got this message in Google's IPO filing.

Google's policies are essentially no different than the policies of Microsoft, Yahoo, Alexa and Amazon. However, these others have been spelling out their nasty policies in detail for years now. By way of contrast, we've had email from indignant Google fans who defended Google by using the old privacy language -- but while doing so they arrived at exactly the wrong interpretation of Google's actual position! Now those emails will stop, because Google's position is clear at last. It's amazing how a vague privacy policy, a minimalist browser interface, and an unconventional corporate culture have convinced so many that Google is different on issues that matter.

After 180 days in the U.S., email messages lose their status as a protected communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and become just another database record. This means that a subpoena instead of a warrant is all that's needed to force Google to produce a copy. Other countries may even lack this basic protection, and Google's databases are distributed all over the world. Since the Patriot Act was passed, it's unclear whether this ECPA protection is worth much anymore in the U.S., or whether it even applies to email that originates from non-citizens in other countries.

Google's relationships with government officials in all of the dozens of countries where they operate are a mystery, because Google never makes any statements about this. But here's a clue: Google uses the term "governmental request" three times on their terms-of-use page and once on their privacy page. Google's language means that all Gmail account holders have consented to allow Google to show any and all email in their Gmail accounts to any official from any government whatsoever, even when the request is informal or extralegal, at Google's sole discretion. Why should we send email to Gmail accounts under such draconian conditions?




-Problem 2: Google's policies do not apply

The phrasing and qualifiers in the Gmail privacy policy are creepy enough, but nothing in any of Google's policies or public statements applies to those of us who don't have Gmail accounts. Google has not even formally stated in their privacy policy that they will not keep a list of keywords scanned from incoming email, and associate these with the incoming email address in their database. They've said that their advertisers won't get personally identifiable information from email, but that doesn't mean that Google won't keep this information for possible future use. Google has never been known to delete any of the data they've collected, since day one. For example, their cookie with the unique ID in it, which expires in 2038, has been tracking all of the search terms you've ever used while searching their main index.



-Problem 3: A massive potential for abuse

If Google builds a database of keywords associated with email addresses, the potential for abuse is staggering. Google could grow a database that spits out the email addresses of those who used those keywords. How about words such as "box cutters" in the same email as "airline schedules"? Can you think of anyone who might be interested in obtaining a list of email addresses for that particular combination? Or how about "mp3" with "download"? Since the RIAA has sent subpoenas to Internet service providers and universities in an effort to identify copyright abusers, why should we expect Gmail to be off-limits?
Intelligence agencies would love to play with this information. Diagrams that show social networks of people who are inclined toward certain thoughts could be generated. This is one form of "data mining," which is very lucrative now for high-tech firms, such as Google, that contract with federal agencies. Email addresses tied to keywords would be perfect for this. The fact that Google offers so much storage turns Gmail into something that is uniquely dangerous and creepy.




-Problem 4: Inappropriate ad matching

We don't use Gmail, but it is safe to assume that the ad matching is no better in Gmail, than it is in news articles that use contextual ad feeds from Google. Here's a screen shot that shows an inappropriate placement of Google ads in a news article. We also read about a lawyer who is experimenting with Gmail. He sent himself a message, and discovered that the law practice footer he uses at the bottom of all of his email triggered an ad for a competing law firm.
Another example is seen in the Google ads at the bottom of this story about Brandon Mayfield. There are two ads. One mentions sexual assault charges (sex has nothing to do with the story), and the other is about anti-terrorism. The entire point of this article, as well as a New York Times piece on May 8, 2004, is that a lawyer has had his career ruined due to overreaction by the FBI, based on disputed evidence. He was arrested as a material witness and his home and office were searched. The NYT (page A12) says that "Mr. Mayfield was arrested before investigators had fully examined his phone records, before they knew if he had ever met with any of the bombing suspects, before they knew if he had ever traveled to Spain or elsewhere overseas. His relatives said he had not been out of the United States for 10 years." The only evidence is a single fingerprint on a plastic bag, and some FBI officials have raised questions about whether this print is a match. While Mr. Mayfield will get his day in court, it appears that Google's ads have already convicted him, and for good measure added some bogus sexual assault charges as well. Would Mr. Mayfield be well-advised to send email to Gmail account holders to plead his case?

The Wichita Eagle is pleased to present Google's recommendation for an alarm company that can "protect your home and family." One tiny problem is that the trigger for this ad is an article about an alarm installer who worked for this company for 14 years, while moonlighting as a serial killer.

Our last example shows three ads fed by Google at the bottom of a Washington Post column titled "Gmail leads way in making ads relevant." The columnist argues that Google's relevant ads improve the web, and therefore she finds nothing objectionable about Gmail. These Google-approved ads offer PageRank for sale, something which only a year ago, Google would have considered high treason. Yes, these ads are "relevant" -- the column is about Google, and the ads are about PageRank. But here's the point: A relevant ad that shows poor judgment is much worse than an irrelevant ad that shows poor judgment. The ads at the bottom of her column disprove her pro-Google arguments. She has no control over this, and is probably not even aware that it happened.

Most writers, even if they are only writing an email message instead of a column in a major newspaper, have more respect for their words than Google does. Don't expect these writers to answer their Gmail.

 

 

 

Reply

Thank you for a very interesting read, Sietze. But, just so you know, the forum here requires users who publish articles from other sources to "quote" the post, and preferably mention the source.

Here's the source anyway ...

GMail Is Too Creepy at Google-Watch.com

Actually, I didn't actively start thinking "Big Brother" and "Conspiracy Theory" until I heard about the 5% AOL deal. Before that, I occasionally had my doubts, but shrugged them off proposing that Google was simply trying to build a massive user base in hopes of going all commercially ballistic on our heads. I thought that was perfectly valid, especially in the digital business world.

My alarms started glowing red and making beeps when I heard about GMail and the unthinkable 2GB accounts. I couldn't fathom it, even under the light of my earlier assumption.

Then I made the connection at some point. A gigantic search engine database, a virtually limitless email database, unthinkable funds. I had to take a closer look at their policies. That's when I noticed the plot thichening.

Now, I'm keeping watch over things, trying to be careful, which has become excessively hard these days. I'm in the process of setting up my own mail server at home. If I can't keep my privacy at the recepient end, I'm sure as hell going to try to keep it on my end.

I believe this post has the potential of getting really hot. I hope more people will join with ideas, comments, perhaps even suggestions.

 

 

 

Reply

Damn!! I never would have guessed all that about google. Sure, any big company has people that are suspicious about it. I'm glad that I *only* use my gmail account to transfer split versions of (legally) publically available files! (Since I don't have a internet connection at home right now, I have a friend of mine split files so that they will fit on floppies, and he send's them to my gmail account.)

I guess if all that is true, I'll have to add google to my anti- list. heh I'm already strongly anti-microsoft. I only use MS products when I have no other choice. There are a few other companies that I avoid.

I've been recommending linux to alot of people just to help them get away from the evil MS!

-YB

Reply

What can I tell you, yungblood? It seems that, in today's world of throat-cutting digital competition, every company that has the ability to turn evil, does!

I utterly hate consipracy theories, I find they put major obtacles for the thinking process. But when I see overwhelming clues, I have to take another look. And unfortunately, as much as I truly adore most of Google's services and software, I smell a big, ugly, twitching, gray rat.

Sometimes, I do the same with my GMail account, but thankfully I have a broadband connection, so I simply let my friends leave me big files there when I'm not at the computer -- a very rare event, by the way.

And as for your anti-list, why don't you tell us more about that? It sounds like a good idea for a new thread. Why don't you start it?

Reply

To be honest, the only thing that surprises me about the above posts is that the posters seem surprised with Google and their ilk!

Electronic communication is a boon the users, BUT it is also a boon to governments, as it is a lot easier to track email than it is "snail mail". (the same goes for mobile phones as opposed to landline phones).

Large corporations and companies will work with governments quickly enough, which you should know if you did history at school or college, so why are you surprised at this latest news?

Reply

I never said I was surprised, pomjim, and neither did the original thread poster. :-)

But like I said, I believe that those who always keep the Conspiracy Theory in the back of their heads, and apply it to every situation they come across in life, are bound to get a narrow view of the circumstances most of the time. When someone focuses their attention on the proverbial Agenda, they may very well miss other points.

So no, I wasn't surprised, I simply controlled myself from thinking this way - but still I had my doubts, for which I tried to theorize other theories than conspiracies, without fully eliminating that probability from my thoughts. And when I gathered enough information, I came out loud saying, "Alright. Now I'm thinking Conspiracy!"

I hope I made my point clear, and thank you for joining us. Stick around now, alright? :-)

Reply

I didn't know the source, because someone e-mailed it to me. I was just surprised by this article, that I wanted to share it

Reply

Don't worry about it, Sietze. Actually, thank you for starting such an interesting thread. :-)

Reply

Don't forget though, although you don't know the actual link, it's still a quote. Even without the link or source, you must quote it, or else you'll get marked and penalized a certain amount of points... banned if over done by the way.

Anyways, about the article. I'm pretty skeptic about being able to let government officials to be able to actually read every single mail we have in our folder, and maybe even the ones we send too. I really don't want my privacy to be easily shot down by that realization. I don't know how hotmail works, but I've been using that forever. With that new NSA satellite thingy, I'm afraid every single email will soon fall to unprivatized piracy sooner or later. I'm wondering how it is even legal to do that, but a contract is a contract. If you make the account, it pretty much supposed to mean you read the terms of agreement. Damn... I hate hidden messages like that, that aren't hidden but just easily missed.

Reply

Hey dude, I realy appreciate this thread, I found it very interesting. But please ... try to only post articles you've written yourself next time. It's a violation of the Astahost TOS since it's copied from http://www.google-watch.org/gmail.html Please don't do this anymore, I don't want you to get banned, you know much too good stories

-=jeroen=-

Reply